Interesting article.  

ETA: Just highlights the different approaches used by the US and Brits.  Opinions are like assholes though....

-------------------------------------------------------------

US army in Iraq institutionally racist, claims British officer

Richard Norton-Taylor and Jamie Wilson in Washington
Thursday January 12, 2006
The Guardian

A senior British officer has criticised the US army for its conduct in Iraq, accusing it of institutional racism, moral righteousness, misplaced optimism, and of being ill-suited to engage in counter-insurgency operations.

The blistering critique, by Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who was the second most senior officer responsible for training Iraqi security forces, reflects criticism and frustration voiced by British commanders of American military tactics.

What is startling is the severity of his comments - and the decision by Military Review, a US army magazine, to publish them.

American soldiers, says Brig Aylwin-Foster, were "almost unfailingly courteous and considerate". But he says "at times their cultural insensitivity, almost certainly inadvertent, arguably amounted to institutional racism".

The US army, he says, is imbued with an unparalleled sense of patriotism, duty, passion and talent. "Yet it seemed weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, a predisposition to offensive operations and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head-on."

Brig Aylwin-Foster says the American army's laudable "can-do" approach paradoxically led to another trait, namely "damaging optimism". Such an ethos, he says, "is unhelpful if it discourages junior commanders from reporting unwelcome news up the chain of command".

But his central theme is that US military commanders have failed to train and educate their soldiers in the art of counter-insurgency operations and the need to cultivate the "hearts and minds" of the local population.

While US officers in Iraq criticised their allies for being too reluctant to use force, their strategy was "to kill or capture all terrorists and insurgents: they saw military destruction of the enemy as a strategic goal in its own right". In short, the brigadier says, "the US army has developed over time a singular focus on conventional warfare, of a particularly swift and violent kind".

Such an unsophisticated approach, ingrained in American military doctrine, is counter-productive, exacerbating the task the US faced by alienating significant sections of the population, argues Brig Aylwin-Foster.

What he calls a sense of "moral righteousness" contributed to the US response to the killing of four American contractors in Falluja in the spring of 2004. As a "come-on" tactic by insurgents, designed to provoke a disproportionate response, it succeeded, says the brigadier, as US commanders were "set on the total destruction of the enemy".

He notes that the firing on one night of more than 40 155mm artillery rounds on a small part of the city was considered by the local US commander as a "minor application of combat power". Such tactics are not the answer, he says, to remove Iraq from the grip of what he calls a "vicious and tenacious insurgency".

Brig Aylwin-Foster's criticisms have been echoed by other senior British officers, though not in such a devastating way. General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the army, told MPs in April 2004 as US forces attacked Falluja: "We must be able to fight with the Americans. That does not mean we must be able to fight as the Americans."

Yesterday Colonel William Darley, the editor of Military Review, told the Guardian: "This [Brig Aylwin-Foster] is a highly regarded expert in this area who is providing a candid critique. It is certainly not uninformed ... It is a professional discussion and a professional critique among professionals about what needs to be done. What he says is authoritative and a useful point of perspective whether you agree with it or not." In a disclaimer he says the article does not reflect the views of the UK or the US army.

Colonel Kevin Benson, director of the US army's school of advanced military studies, who told the Washington Post the brigadier was an "insufferable British snob", said his remark had been made in the heat of the moment. "I applaud the brigadier for starting the debate," he said. "It is a debate that must go on and I myself am writing a response."

The brigadier was deputy commander of the office of security transition for training and organising Iraq's armed forces in 2004. Last year he took up the post of deputy commander of the Eufor, the European peacekeeping force in Bosnia. He could not be contacted last night.

Euro babble.

Yeah, with all the negative press the UK has had recently in Iraq, I guess the only option to make themselves look better was to take a shot at the US Army.

I don't understand why he would put out all this criticism unless he had an objective. One would think that offereing constructive criticism would be more effective to enact some kind of change. He isn't offering any new ideas or solutions, he's just criticising. That just sounds like whining to me. What a bitch.

Probably the same crap they wrote about us in 1776...

This from a guy, where his country make monkey sounds and throw bananas at black professional soccer players.

Excuse my while I move on to something else while he spews self rightousness.

Quoted: Euro babble.

Yup!

Quoted: Yeah, with all the negative press the UK has had recently in Iraq, I guess the only option to make themselves look better was to take a shot at the US Army. I don't understand why he would put out all this criticism unless he had an objective. One would think that offereing constructive criticism would be more effective to enact some kind of change. He isn't offering any new ideas or solutions, he's just criticising. That just sounds like whining to me. What a bitch.

Getting a lecture on cultural sensitivity from a British Officer is more than a little ironic considering the history of the British Army in the last 200 years.

The British have made a routine practice of setting one ethnic group against another… Their past history in IRAQ for example.

This is really just bigoted Euro babble, typical we are smarter than the Americans horseshit.

But his central theme is that US military commanders have failed to train and educate their soldiers in the art of counter-insurgency operations and the need to cultivate the "hearts and minds" of the local population.

The Brits DO know how to conduct successful CI operations.

His complaint seems to be that American forces are focused on winning.

Quoted: He notes that the firing on one night of more than 40 155mm artillery rounds on a small part of the city was considered by the local US commander as a "minor application of combat power". Such tactics are not the answer, he says, to remove Iraq from the grip of what he calls a "vicious and tenacious insurgency".

Maybe, but it's still a good idea, on principle.

Quoted: But his central theme is that US military commanders have failed to train and educate their soldiers in the art of counter-insurgency operations and the need to cultivate the "hearts and minds" of the local population. The Brits DO know how to conduct successful CI operations.

You forgot the question mark at the end.

usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/download/English/NovDec05/aylwin.pdf

^
Aylwin-Foster's piece...

Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, with all the negative press the UK has had recently in Iraq, I guess the only option to make themselves look better was to take a shot at the US Army. I don't understand why he would put out all this criticism unless he had an objective. One would think that offereing constructive criticism would be more effective to enact some kind of change. He isn't offering any new ideas or solutions, he's just criticising. That just sounds like whining to me. What a bitch. Getting a lecture on cultural sensitivity from a British Officer is more than a little ironic considering the history of the British Army in the last 200 years. The British have made a routine practice of setting one ethnic group against another… Their past history in IRAQ for example. This is really just bigoted Euro babble, typical we are smarter than the Americans horseshit.

It can almost be said that much of the problems we are havng in Iraq now were set in motion by the Brits years ago.

Wonder what he says of the other services (Marine Corps came first to my mind)?

Also there is no substitute for victory.  What is enough and what is too much in his mind?

Quoted: But his central theme is that US military commanders have failed to train and educate their soldiers in the art of counter-insurgency operations and the need to cultivate the "hearts and minds" of the local population. The Brits DO know how to conduct successful CI operations.

Maybe 40 years ago and even then their successful operations tended to be long term festering sores that erupted later.

Quoted: Quoted: But his central theme is that US military commanders have failed to train and educate their soldiers in the art of counter-insurgency operations and the need to cultivate the "hearts and minds" of the local population. The Brits DO know how to conduct successful CI operations. You forgot the question mark at the end.

No, I didn't.
The Brits are considered the masters of counter-insurgency.

BFD.
Authors head article with racism accusation with apparent ulterior motives as it is hardly mentioned in the article at all and when it is there is an accompanying statement that it is "almost certainly inadvertent".

More PC bullshit. Fuck the media.

Here's the BBC version of this tale(link at the bottom):
=========================================================
BBC NEWS
UK officer slams US Iraq tactics
By Matthew Davis
BBC News, Washington

A senior British Army officer has sparked indignation in the US with a scathing article criticising the US Army's performance in Iraq.

Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster said US tactics early in the occupation had alienated Iraqis and exacerbated problems for the coalition.

Officers displayed cultural ignorance, self-righteousness, over-optimism and unproductive management, he said.

The article, in Military Review, has drawn US criticism but also approval.

'Stiflingly hierarchical'

In it Brig Aylwin-Foster says American officers displayed such cultural insensitivities that it "arguably amounted to institutional racism" and may have helped spur the insurgency.

Sometimes good articles do make you angry
Col Kevin Benson
School of Advanced Military Studies

While the army is "indisputably the master of conventional war fighting, it is notably less proficient in... what the US defence community often calls Operations Other Than War," the officer wrote.

Operations to win the peace in Iraq were "weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, predisposition to offensive operations and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head on", he added.

The British officer - who was commander of a programme to train the Iraqi military - says he wrote the article with the intent to "be helpful to an institution I greatly respect".

Yet the initial response from many US military officers was hostile.

'It made me upset'

Col Kevin Benson, commander of the US Army's elite School of Advanced Military Studies, said his first reaction was that Brig Aylwin-Foster was "an insufferable British snob".

"Some of this is pretty powerful stuff and it made me a little upset," the colonel told the BBC.

Col Benson, one of the lead planners for the 3rd US Army's early post-invasion operations, is writing a rebuttal to the Military Review piece.

"We paid a great deal of attention to the tribal interactions within Iraq and on making commanders in the field aware of the sensitivities," he said.

"And I certainly don't recognise what he says about the de-professionalisation of the US Army.

"But sometimes good articles do make you angry. We should publish articles like this. We are in a war and we must always be thinking of how we can improve the way we operate."

Earlier this month President George W Bush said US troop levels in Iraq would be reduced to several thousand below the pre-election baseline of 138,000 by Spring 2006.

Those cuts would come in addition to the decrease of 20,000 troops who were in the country largely to provide security during the December elections.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4603136.stm

Published: 2006/01/11 20:59:02 GMT

© BBC MMVI

I too would refer to 40 rounds of 155 as a "Minor Application of Combat Power".  Especially in Falajuah.  Lucky we didn't MOAB the fuckers.

Also,

What he calls a sense of "moral righteousness" contributed to the US response to the killing of four American contractors in Falluja in the spring of 2004. As a "come-on" tactic by insurgents, designed to provoke a disproportionate response, it succeeded, says the brigadier, as US commanders were "set on the total destruction of the enemy".

I really have to scratch my head at any criticism of being "set on the total destruction of the emeny."  Isn't that what we're supposed to do?  


-K

As a Brit told a buddy of mine in Iraq "you know bloke we know how to do this, we've been in Ireland for 40 years"

My buddy reponded "how long you been there again?"

The guy sounds like a freakin' pansy.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: But his central theme is that US military commanders have failed to train and educate their soldiers in the art of counter-insurgency operations and the need to cultivate the "hearts and minds" of the local population. The Brits DO know how to conduct successful CI operations. You forgot the question mark at the end. No, I didn't. The Brits are considered the masters of counter-insurgency.

Yeah, they have done real well against the Irish.... The current troubles started in 1916..

Keep in mind a couple of things when you respond to this article.
1. The Guardian is further to the left, and more rabidly anti-American, than Pravda was under Brezhnev.
2. Because of the above, the pommy brig. might have actually been engaging in constructive critisicm, but the reporter chose not to include most of that.
3. There IS constructive critique and critisism in what the Guardian did publish, for example:

American soldiers, says Brig Aylwin-Foster, were "almost unfailingly courteous and considerate". But he says "at times their cultural insensitivity, almost certainly inadvertent, arguably amounted to institutional racism".

Brig Aylwin-Foster says the American army's laudable "can-do" approach paradoxically led to another trait, namely "damaging optimism". Such an ethos, he says, "is unhelpful if it discourages junior commanders from reporting unwelcome news up the chain of command".

But his central theme is that US military commanders have failed to train and educate their soldiers in the art of counter-insurgency operations and the need to cultivate the "hearts and minds" of the local population.

While US officers in Iraq criticised their allies for being too reluctant to use force, their strategy was "to kill or capture all terrorists and insurgents: they saw military destruction of the enemy as a strategic goal in its own right". In short, the brigadier says, "the US army has developed over time a singular focus on conventional warfare, of a particularly swift and violent kind".

Such an unsophisticated approach, ingrained in American military doctrine, is counter-productive, exacerbating the task the US faced by alienating significant sections of the population, argues Brig Aylwin-Foster.

What he calls a sense of "moral righteousness" contributed to the US response to the killing of four American contractors in Falluja in the spring of 2004. As a "come-on" tactic by insurgents, designed to provoke a disproportionate response, it succeeded, says the brigadier, as US commanders were "set on the total destruction of the enemy".

He notes that the firing on one night of more than 40 155mm artillery rounds on a small part of the city was considered by the local US commander as a "minor application of combat power". Such tactics are not the answer, he says, to remove Iraq from the grip of what he calls a "vicious and tenacious insurgency".

Once you strip away the editorialisng by the reporters, all of that sounds like constructive criticism made by a high ranking, professional officer of many years service. He may or may not be right. I don't know, I'm not a professional soldier, and I'm certainly not a General. However, unless you hold the ill-founded and irrational belief that the American armed forces are perfect and have no room for improvement, then the obsevations of a long standing ally who has observed the U.S. armed forces in action may just be a useful thing.

A senior British officer has criticised the US army for its conduct in Iraq, accusing it of institutional racism, moral righteousness, misplaced optimism, and of being ill-suited to engage in counter-insurgency operations.

The blistering critique, by Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who was the second most senior officer responsible for training Iraqi security forces, reflects criticism and frustration voiced by British commanders of American military tactics.

That sounds like spin from leftist and anti-American journalists. There is a great difference between the two.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8953

a singular focus on conventional warfare, of a particularly swift and violent kind

Um, isnt this the goal of conventional warfare?  While he is making his tea, he will get his butt smacked.  

Obviously this dude didnt learn anything from the Germans in WWII.

Something about Blitzkreig and Air, Sea, Land.  



The Germans are going to kick their asses again someday.

Nigel Aylwin-Foster


Can you take anyone seriouslly  with that name
its like a really bad Monty Phyton charactor


anyway as said before they have done a great job with the Irish

Just finished reading the actual paper. Aylwin-Foster comes across as a staunch ally, friend and admirer of the U.S. army. He comes across as a good friend you tells you that you really should drive slower in the wet, and hopes that you don't get killed before you realise that.

His criticisms come across as fair, balanced and constructive. He makes the point, repeatedly, that whatever the individual failings of the U.S. Army, it is a superb fighting force and THE preeminent conventional warfighting instrument. Unfortunatly, the current ops in Iraq and Afghansitan are COIN ops, like Vietnam et, al.

Don't trust the Guardian or BBC reports. All  they seem to be doing is taking the critisisms, spinning them as "severe". Essentially, these bolshie rags are endevouring to use what is an even, constructive and helpful series of obsevations to make THEIR point that the U.S. Army is a POS unsuited for carrying out the task that the evil "W" has given it. Go to the source, not the libtards who report on it.

BTW, he stated that U.S. special forces and the Marines were much better trained and equipped for this sort of warfare. Sempre Fi!

No worries Andy, thanks for the link to the orignal. It was a facinating read. I especially liked the editor's comments at the start. It essentially said "before you thin-skinned guys get your knickers in a twist, this guy is a friend who knows what he's talking about. BTW, we don't endorse his views in any way, shape or form"

To be fair, I would imagine that some Brit officers would get their noses out of joint if a senior Yank officer wrote "The British Army is too small and underfunded to fulfil all of its mission requirements in the post 9/11 world. In addition, its tribal regimental nature is just plain wierd".

I remember a story from the 1960's. Up until that point, Australia had exculsivly bought British warships. All of that changed when the gov. ordered 3 Charles F. Adams class destroyers. These were so much better than anything the Brits had at the time that, in retrospect, the decision seems a no-brainer. However, at the time, it was a big move, and a comment on the fact that British warships had fallen behind the times. On seeing the 1st Australian Adams class ship (the HMAS Brisbane, I think) a senior RN office flag officer, who had been told why we bought the ships, commented "I don't know why they bought that American rubish". Nobody likes being told that they have faults, especially by outsiders.

Quoted: Just finished reading the actual paper. Aylwin-Foster comes across as a staunch ally, friend and admirer of the U.S. army. He comes across as a good friend you tells you that you really should drive slower in the wet, and hopes that you don't get killed before you realise that. His criticisms come across as fair, balanced and constructive. He makes the point, repeatedly, that whatever the individual failings of the U.S. Army, it is a superb fighting force and THE preeminent conventional warfighting instrument. Unfortunatly, the current ops in Iraq and Afghansitan are COIN ops, like Vietnam et, al. Don't trust the Guardian or BBC reports. All  they seem to be doing is taking the critisisms, spinning them as "severe". Essentially, these bolshie rags are endevouring to use what is an even, constructive and helpful series of obsevations to make THEIR point that the U.S. Army is a POS unsuited for carrying out the task that the evil "W" has given it. Go to the source, not the libtards who report on it. BTW, he stated that U.S. special forces and the Marines were much better trained and equipped for this sort of warfare. Sempre Fi!

Stop it ! A calm voice of reason is not welcome here.

As a former JRTC observer/controller who viewed 20 rotations of brigades attempting to conduct counterinsurgency operations, I agree that there is some merit to this portion:

But his central theme is that US military commanders have failed to train and educate their soldiers in the art of counter-insurgency operations and the need to cultivate the "hearts and minds" of the local population. While US officers in Iraq criticised their allies for being too reluctant to use force, their strategy was "to kill or capture all terrorists and insurgents: they saw military destruction of the enemy as a strategic goal in its own right". In short, the brigadier says, "the US army has developed over time a singular focus on conventional warfare, of a particularly swift and violent kind". Such an unsophisticated approach, ingrained in American military doctrine, is counter-productive, exacerbating the task the US faced by alienating significant sections of the population, argues Brig Aylwin-Foster.

At JRTC, I saw a great many brigades/battalions whose answer to any tactical situation was overwhelming firepower.  That's usually the correct answer to any tactical situation.  However, those same units thought that overwhelming firepower was also the correct answer to ANY given situation.  That is not good.  I have see battalion commanders tell their staffs and commanders "fuck that hearts and minds crap.  Grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.  We want all villagers to wet their pants at the sight of a US Soldier"  That isn't how to win a counterinsurgency operation; that mindset guarantees the populace will be pissed off enough to pitch their lot in with the insurgents, because while they will think "well, the insurgents are bastards, but they are OUR bastards."

Counterinsurgency requires finesse and an understanding of the native population.  I didn't see that at JRTC; I hope these units in Iraq have learned the right lessons and are applying them properly.

Quoted: Quoted: I remember a story from the 1960's. Up until that point, Australia had exculsivly bought British warships. All of that changed when the gov. ordered 3 Charles F. Adams class destroyers. These were so much better than anything the Brits had at the time that, in retrospect, the decision seems a no-brainer. However, at the time, it was a big move, and a comment on the fact that British warships had fallen behind the times. On seeing the 1st Australian Adams class ship (the HMAS Brisbane, I think) a senior RN office flag officer, who had been told why we bought the ships, commented "I don't know why they bought that American rubish". Nobody likes being told that they have faults, especially by outsiders. How times change, now our Senior Officers in the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force wish we would buy American too! ANdy

Weird because I want an Aston Martin. Oh wait, they're owned by Ford, nevermind.

Tagged to read the various versions.

Quoted: Some of you Keyboard Kommandoes need to get a more informed view of things once in a while.

I'd rather listen to a keyboard commando than a Limey defeatist.

Quoted: Stop it ! A calm voice of reason is not welcome here.

It certainly doesn't feel welcome from you.

Hello pot, this is Kettle calling.

This from an officer of one of the most racist and sexist armies on the face of the planet.

Um...huh?

So is the U.S. military perfect? No room for improvement?

Does it mean anything that many senior serving U.S. officers have said pretty much the same thing? Gee, even here on ARFCOM, serving personal have made similar complaints.

I think this is what was meant when that Pommy brig. said that the positive, can do attitude taken too far can be dangerous

Quoted: Hello pot, this is Kettle calling. This from an officer of one of the most racist and sexist armies on the face of the planet.

Did you even read what he actually wrote, rather than what the commie press said?

Quoted: Um...huh? So is the U.S. military perfect? No room for improvement?

There's a difference between having room for improvement and being "institutionally racist."

Quoted: His complaint seems to be that American forces are focused on winning.

Exactly.

To quote what he actually said, in context:

My own experience, serving at the heart of a U.S. dominated command within the Coalition from December 2003 to November 2004, suggests something of an enigma, hence the spur to study the subject further. My overriding impression was of an Army imbued with an unparalleled sense of patriotism, duty, passion, commitment,and determination, with plenty of talent, and in no way lacking in humanity or compassion. Yet it seemed weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, a pre-disposition to offensive operations, and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head-on. Many personnel seemed to struggle to understand the nuances of the OIF Phase 4 environment. Moreover, whilst they were almost unfailingly courteous and considerate, at times their cultural insensitivity, almost certainly inadvertent, arguably amounted to institutional racism. To bal- ance that apparent litany of criticisms, the U.S. Army was instrumental in a string of tactical and operational successes through the second half of 2004; so any blanket verdict would be grossly misleading.

Does that help clarify things?

ETA: bad formating fixed

I get the impression that some people never actually got over 1775 and 1812. There also seems to be a lack of understanding by some that Britain is not the same as Europe. Just because the French and Germans do something, dosn't mean  that the British are responsible.

I also think that part of the problem is that America gets bashed so often, but from within and without, that some people have lost the ability to distinguish between destructive and constructive criticism. Its a shame, understandable, but a shame none the less

Quoted: But his central theme is that US military commanders have failed to train and educate their soldiers in the art of counter-insurgency operations and the need to cultivate the "hearts and minds" of the local population. The Brits DO know how to conduct successful CI operations.

Yes, Northern Ireland, for example.

Quoted: To be fair, I would imagine that some Brit officers would get their noses out of joint if a senior Yank officer wrote "The British Army is too small and underfunded to fulfil all of its mission requirements in the post 9/11 world. In addition, its tribal regimental nature is just plain wierd".

From what I can gather, the only ones who would get pissed off by the first part are the staff officers who've never actually been out and done it.

Book recommendation for y'all:
www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0755313747/qid=1137071536/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_3_1/026-2160281-2314047

This is the guy who made the speech before the invasion of Iraq, the one your Commander in Chief had framed on his wall. He would most certainly agree that our forces were underfunded and equipped.

Plus you can see all the entertaining tribalism that the regiments entail.


As to the rest of it, I'd put it down the "Guarniad" taking it out of context intentionally.

/PHil

Quoted: Nigel Aylwin-Foster What IS the deal with Brits and hyphenated last names ? Can you take anyone seriously  with that name its like a really bad Monty Python character Probably not fair, but funny. anyway as said before they have done a great job with the Irish Fair and funny, Maybe they should put this guy in charge of a subtle nuanced security policy for all the terrorist mosques and subway security  in London.   Didn't we have a guy running for President  that wanted a more subtle nuanced approach to fighting terrorism ?

  Anyway it was a good read. For what it's worth ,I'm glad our US Army does take the effort to listen to other opinions.

 Just like we on arfcom have to listen to a RN swab-jockey who got his geopolitical expertise from scraping rust on a RN auxiliary ship.

Quoted: Interesting article.   ETA: Just highlights the different approaches used by the US and Brits.  Opinions are like assholes though....

Speaking of assholes.....

General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the army, told MPs in April 2004 as US forces attacked Falluja: "We must be able to fight with the Americans. That does not mean we must be able to fight as the Americans."

Jackson does not like Americans. Never has, and he's never been shy about it. He used to be Sir Michael Jackson, but for some reason changed it when he went to Bosnia...

Also he made many remarks while being the head of the NATO forces in Bosnia about the pervasive "gun culture" in the Balkans and that he didn't want it to end up like America.

But he's not all bad- he put US General and future presidential wanna-be Wesley Clark in his place:


"As allied troops moved into Kosovo, 200 Russian troops made a surprise dash from Bosnia and occupied Pristina airport, where General Sir Mike Jackson, the commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, was to make his headquarters.
Gen Clark ordered Gen Jackson to storm the airport at which point the British commander was reported to have said: 'I'm not going to start the third world war for you.' "

http://www.unmikonline.org/press/2003/wire/Sept/imm010903AM.htm